Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#61

Post by olliesaunders »

mibbitier wrote: post #43
wpietri wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising can add value when it transmits novel information that would be hard to get some other way. But it usually doesn't. It's mainly an arms race to distort natural market outcomes. Coca Cola doesn't spend over a billion dollars a year advertising because they want to make you aware of some new fact. They just think they can make much more than that billion back by manipulating you.

Nice conspiracy theory. Advertising is there to make sure you're aware of something. It's telling you "Hey! There's this product/movie/service etc that you might not have known about". I find advertising extremely useful to know about new things.

This was what advertising was about in the 30s maybe. Since then its gotten sophisticated, employing tricks that prey on our comparatively unsophisticated psychology making you want things that you otherwise wouldn’t.

Besides, if advertising didn’t exist or was illegal or something, couldn’t we just create a webapp to let people exchange information about interesting products and services and that would be the end of that problem. No need for information about products and services to be so pervasively integrated into every nook and cranny of our society.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#62

Post by losvedir »

chimi wrote: post #13

Why don't people who donated to app.net at least get an account to use the service? They paid $50 and they don't even get an account? In a way, by paying $50 or more, they are committing themselves to pay an unknown, perhaps greater amount to actually use app.net. $50 is a lot of money. Why don't funders get an account?

> Why don't people who donated to app.net at least get an account to use the service?

What do you mean? I paid the $50 and now I have an account.

There was an email a week or so ago talking about the launch of Alpha which said to let them know if you want to log in. I replied saying I backed them and would like to log in, and they set me up.

Maybe that was a one-off thing? In any case, it's pretty slick and I'm happy to be on it.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#63

Post by ninetax »

It's all about profit. That is, when the transactions are all said and done (whether the user paid for the service, or the advertisers have bought their advertisements) how much good will is left over?

How much good feeling does each party how? Can the user say that they feel good about using the service, is the service provider satisfied with how the transactions lay?

With Facebook and twitter some people, users and advertisers alike, don't feel enough profit from the service. Maybe with App.net they will.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#64

Post by MartinCron »

wpietri wrote: post #47
mibbitier wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice conspiracy theory. Advertising is there to make sure you're aware of something. It's telling you "Hey! There's this product/movie/service etc that you might not have known about". I find advertising extremely useful to know about new things.

Are you seriously suggesting that Coca Cola spends a billion dollars a year to reach people who are unfamiliar with their beverage? I'm not sure what conspiracy you think I'm suggesting. There is nothing particularly hidden about what advertisers do. Go talk to people who have made ads for a living. Or take a media literacy course. Heck, go watch the Superbowl beer commercials and tell us what novel product informati…

What is this Coca Cola thing everyone keeps talking about? I've never heard of it.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#65

Post by mbreese »

vannevar wrote: post #21
lowkey wrote: post #4

Fee-based Twitter vs. Ad-Supported Twitter is a false dichotomy. This smells like a PR stunt. How about an open-source Twitter-like service that can run on your own server and federate with others? http://www.Status.net has offered this for several years now and they have done an outstanding job of creating a free and open alternative for status-feed based communication.

Twitter's functionality is basically email+listserv. I've often wondered why the big email players (Google in particular) didn't field a competing service simply built on top of email. You could still use your email account as usual, but using a special client you could use the same account as a Twitter clone.

Wasn't that Google Buzz?

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#66

Post by objclxt »

wpietri wrote: post #47
mibbitier wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice conspiracy theory. Advertising is there to make sure you're aware of something. It's telling you "Hey! There's this product/movie/service etc that you might not have known about". I find advertising extremely useful to know about new things.

Are you seriously suggesting that Coca Cola spends a billion dollars a year to reach people who are unfamiliar with their beverage? I'm not sure what conspiracy you think I'm suggesting. There is nothing particularly hidden about what advertisers do. Go talk to people who have made ads for a living. Or take a media literacy course. Heck, go watch the Superbowl beer commercials and tell us what novel product informati…

The beer commercials are actually quite a bad example in this case: Coca Cola certainly don't spend billions a year to reach people unfamiliar with their beverages. Beer companies do.

A major target market for alcohol is those either underage or just starting drinking. Habits and personally preferences are frequently set very early on - Superbowl beer commercials may be designed for press, but a significant bulk of advertising money is spent by beer companies to convince people who have just started drinking that their brand is the right brand.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#67

Post by drumdance »

wpietri wrote: post #37
mibbitier wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

Advertising can add value when it transmits novel information that would be hard to get some other way. But it usually doesn't. It's mainly an arms race to distort natural market outcomes. Coca Cola doesn't spend over a billion dollars a year advertising because they want to make you aware of some new fact. They just think they can make much more than that billion back by manipulating you.

What is a "natural market outcome?"

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#68

Post by InclinedPlane »

wpietri wrote: post #37
mibbitier wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that advertisers never meet users needs. If I'm selling you a bike, and I also tell you about a good deal on bike insurance you can get, then I'm advertising at you. Maybe I get a cut of the insurance premium. BUT, I'm also adding value for the customer. It's a mutually beneficial transaction. I know it's blasphemy to claim that advertising is sometimes pretty damn useful around these parts, but the f…

Advertising can add value when it transmits novel information that would be hard to get some other way. But it usually doesn't. It's mainly an arms race to distort natural market outcomes. Coca Cola doesn't spend over a billion dollars a year advertising because they want to make you aware of some new fact. They just think they can make much more than that billion back by manipulating you.

Part of that is due to distortions caused by tax regulations. Advertising spending is basically a tax writeoff so effectively costs nothing.

Re: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter

#70

Post by r00fus »

dasil003 wrote: post #60

I'm a bit surprised the comments here are so overwhelmingly critical. I think there's a legitimate point here, which is that the users paying money is not a silver bullet. It's not as if paid services don't make decisions that end up screwing users one way or another, not to mention the fact that subscription fees and ads are not always mutually exclusive (witness cable TV, newspapers, etc). In fact Twitter toed the…

My only potential gripe with App.net is that they can't protect their users after the company is acquired. The Instagram/Sparrow problem combined with tendancy of almost every company to kowtow to the advertising industry is a valid concern for me.
Post reply on HN